SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive a free coupon code for the James Fox UFO documentary "The Phenomenon," which includes 3 hours of extras, while supplies last. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Biden also wants to kill a major energy project between US and Canada on his first day in office. Maybe it's a good idea. Maybe it's not. As for the lockdown strategy, Sweden is presently doing a turn-around on their open-for-business approach and instituting measures. This is a very bad sign, as is this long-hauler syndrome.They could have done this with proper messaging. Making it illegal only brings out the crazies who make it a fake political and or free speech issue. That's more or less what incoming President Biden plans to do here.
That's already been done, and approved. So one more time around the block. Regardless of whether or not the environmental risks will be "examined", I can pretty much guarantee that there will be insufficient environmental restoration rules in place. I live here in Alberta, and therefore it's heretical for me to say that the tar sands are an environmental disaster on a massive scale, but it's also true.Biden wants these energy projects to be examined for environmental impact.
The funny thing is that the strategists and executives in every mid-to large size oil company up here has known that Keystone was dead or too late for years. It literally no longer is part of most strategies. Even if it comes on-line, it will be too late because of the sandbagging.Biden also wants to kill a major energy project between US and Canada on his first day in office. Maybe it's a good idea. Maybe it's not. As for the lockdown strategy, Sweden is presently doing a turn-around on their open-for-business approach and instituting measures. This is a very bad sign, as is this long-hauler syndrome.
Interesting perspective, but I'm too far out of that loop to know what you mean. What it seems like you're saying is that TMX ( presumably an acronym for the trans mountain pipeline expansion ) through BC is a more effective strategy anyway. Being the heretic that I am, I'm fine with no expansion at all until they agree to clean-up ( rather than expand ) the giant mess they have up there in the tar sands. By clean-up, I mean clean it ALL up AS THEY GO, not create some 7% token reclamation zone to demonstrate that they're not doing completely nothing.The funny thing is that the strategists and executives in every mid-to large size oil company up here has known that Keystone was dead or too late for years. It literally no longer is part of most strategies. Even if it comes on-line, it will be too late because of the sandbagging.
It's a non-issue for most. Unfortunately that means banking on TMX and BC politics (which is almost as dumb as Washington), and ship-by-rail and ship-by-truck. Both of which are far less safe and far more carbon-intensive, but that's the kind of decision making you get when you make decisions based on emotion rather than science.
The only real loser for Keystone now are the Albertan taxpayers. Kenney's an idiot for investing in it. He was warned off of it and wouldn't listen.
What I'm saying is that most (smart) organizations recognized that we couldn't count on Keystone being there to build a business strategy on - so other transportation strategies were planned. Don't get me wrong, Keystone would be a net positive for us, but most current business plans have been done with the assumption that it won't be there. Instead, Trans Mountain and other strategies are being exploited. Most are costlier, but still work even at ~$30/barrel or higher from what I'm being told. However, they are all (except pipelines) far less environmentally friendly in terms of carbon release and risks for oil leakage. A train derailing while carrying oil is usually more risky than a pipeline leak, for example. And the risks of trucks getting into accidents nets out far higher in terms of spillage as well. And they all take far more energy to transport than a gravity-fed pipeline.Interesting perspective, but I'm too far out of that loop to know what you mean. What it seems like you're saying is that TMX ( presumably an acronym for the trans mountain pipeline expansion ) through BC is a more effective strategy anyway.
One day I'll share some stuff with you. Not saying the industry isn't environmentally net problematic, but some of us are actually reclaiming the land and leaving it healthier than we found it. Nothing much grows in the tar sands to begin with, because it's the most massive oil spill on the planet - it was just done by nature.Being the heretic that I am, I'm fine with no expansion at all until they agree to clean-up ( rather than expand ) the giant mess they have up there in the tar sands. By clean-up, I mean clean it ALL up AS THEY GO, not create some 7% token reclamation zone to demonstrate that they're not doing completely nothing.
Thanks for that. Makes sense to me.What I'm saying is that most (smart) organizations recognized that we couldn't count on Keystone being there to build a business strategy on - so other transportation strategies were planned. Don't get me wrong, Keystone would be a net positive for us, but most current business plans have been done with the assumption that it won't be there. Instead, Trans Mountain and other strategies are being exploited. Most are costlier, but still work even at ~$30/barrel or higher from what I'm being told. However, they are all (except pipelines) far less environmentally friendly in terms of carbon release and risks for oil leakage. A train derailing while carrying oil is usually more risky than a pipeline leak, for example. And the risks of trucks getting into accidents nets out far higher in terms of spillage as well. And they all take far more energy to transport than a gravity-fed pipeline.
Yes, I've heard that all before, and looked into it, and like I say, only about 7% has been reclaimed, and calling it a natural oil spill is dismissive of the scale of devastation that isn't natural. When only 1% of profits could clean-up everything as they go ( not to mention the jobs it would create ), and they won't do it, then that is where the real problem is. They fight tooth and nail against any regulation that would hold them accountable.One day I'll share some stuff with you. Not saying the industry isn't environmentally net problematic, but some of us are actually reclaiming the land and leaving it healthier than we found it. Nothing much grows in the tar sands to begin with, because it's the most massive oil spill on the planet - it was just done by nature.
Totally hear and agree with you. Not all companies approach this stuff the same way. I’m talking about projects that I’m aware of and tangentially involved with, that I can’t discuss here.Thanks for that. Makes sense to me.
Yes, I've heard that all before, and looked into it, and like I say, only about 7% has been reclaimed, and calling it a natural oil spill is dismissive of the scale of devastation that isn't natural. When only 1% of profits could clean-up everything as they go ( not to mention the jobs it would create ), and they won't do it, then that is where the real problem is. They fight tooth and nail against any regulation that would hold them accountable.
I would love to hear your perspectives sometime ( off the record ). BTW, my Dad was the head geologist for a number of years at Pan Canadian. They didn't drill a well anywhere in North America unless it went past him first, and he showed me what the real maps look like. You know, the ones that show what companies own what land where, and where all the deposits are ( both operational and in reserve ). It's a whole other world.Totally hear and agree with you. Not all companies approach this stuff the same way. I’m talking about projects that I’m aware of and tangentially involved with, that I can’t discuss here.
Interesting. A quick look at some of the articles about Van Morrison's views on the COVID-19 pandemic doesn't look like denial, as in he doesn't believe the SARS-CoV-2 virus is real. He ( and Clapton ) appear to be in the anti-lockdown camp ( same as me and a number of PhDs and over 50,000 medical scientists and health care professionals ).Into the mystic is one of my favourite songs ever. Oddly enough, I discovered Van Morrison by loving the 80's movie 'Dream a Little Dream' as a kid.
Too bad he's a covid denier. It's certainly made me think twice about him.
Yup. It's wild how little folks here understand how things like that really work, even though we depend upon it - and as citizens in fact own it for the most part.I would love to hear your perspectives sometime ( off the record ). BTW, my Dad was the head geologist for a number of years at Pan Canadian. They didn't drill a well anywhere in North America unless it went past him first, and he showed me what the real maps look like. You know, the ones that show what companies own what land where, and where all the deposits are ( both operational and in reserve ). It's a whole other world.
If we've learned anything by going through the Trumpian era, it's that purposeful misinformation kills.Interesting. A quick look at some of the articles about Van Morrison's views on the COVID-19 pandemic doesn't look like denial, as in he doesn't believe the SARS-CoV-2 virus is real. He ( and Clapton ) appear to be in the anti-lockdown camp ( same as me and a number of PhDs and over 50,000 medical scientists and health care professionals ).
What is less clear is what he means by the "pseudoscience". If you've followed this issue as closely as I have, you already know that there are two versions of pseudoscience being talked about. One is the pseudoscience around dubious, if not outright false, claims of cures. The other type of pseudoscience, and the one I think Van Morrison is probably referring to, are the contentious and often highly politicized claims that are being touted as scientific, when in-fact, they don't really meet that standard.
The details of those particular claims are better discussed on the COVID-19 News thread.
I'm not so sure about all that. There's nothing wrong with earning a living doing what you do, regardless of whether or not you happen to be famous, and celebrities often advocate not simply for themselves, but for their fans and the disenfranchised, which now includes millions who have lost their livelihoods due to pandemic restrictions killing their businesses.If we've learned anything by going through the Trumpian era, it's that purposeful misinformation kills.
Van Morrison has been clear - Covid dangers are 'pseudoscience' and he wants the lockdowns lifted so he can make money. Which clearly is exactly the same conspiracy thinking pseudo-criticism that is weaponized to achieve an end that Trump and his kin do.
You're asking questions while obeying the law and not harming people. That is skepticism and is good, and you're not harming anyone.
Trump weaponized conspiracy thinking to enrich himself and attempt to subvert democracy in favour of fascism. Van Morrison is doing the same in an attempt to get an income. Both harm others in an attempt for personal gain. There's a big difference there.
Clapton and Van Morrison know they're full of shit. They just lie to make money and get attention, even if it means people die that aren't them. Period. No different than Trump. Classic narcissism.
I'm not so sure about all that. There's nothing wrong with earning a living doing what you do, regardless of whether or not you happen to be famous, and celebrities often advocate not simply for themselves, but for their fans and the disenfranchised, which now includes millions who have lost their livelihoods due to pandemic restrictions killing their businesses.
That being said, I don't know enough about either of their views to be sure just how radical they are, and I'm probably somewhat biased because I've been a fan of both of them as musicians. So I don't want them to be cuckoo. One think I've learned about this pandemic is that as soon as you think you can take on a sound position, some information comes to light that throws doubt on it.
It's really complex. I do a couple of hours of research on it daily, and it barely scratches the surface.